"Einstein's theory of relativity revolutionized our view of the universe, positing a space-time continuum undergirding all reality. Equally impactful has been quantum mechanics, which describe the behavior of subatomic particles in ways that differ from observable matter. But both theories have been verified by empirical observation and scientific experiments. String theory, and a select number of other theories that purport to explain the universe in one, all-encompassing equation, remain completely divorced from the physical world. Surely theories about the universe must relate directly to the matter in it?! Did Einstein get it wrong, or has groupthink led us down the wrong path for the last 40 years?""So you’d be hard-pressed to say that nothing is happening. The problem is that we really wanted to quantize the geometry of general relativity but, in fact, what we ended up doing was geometrizing the quantum.""It is a question as to whether this is more of a physics-inspired theory or whether it’s really an economic and sociological phenomenon, which is that you have a generation that physicists in the baby boom who seem to be absolutely astounding geometers but appear to be wanting in terms of their ability to make contact with the natural world by the standards of previous generations.""And naturally that’s going to elicit some very strong feelings, because the idea that we would have had perhaps two generations let’s say in 40 years of physicists who can’t make contact with experimental reality with their theories is completely unprecedented in the modern era."

Excellent choice, Wormley! I rag on you a lot for your worship of idiotjourno-science propaganda sites like Phys.org and others. But I'm nothere to just denigrate you like some insane liberal idiot, If you startto actually think, I'm going to notice and praise you for it. And Ericis of course a very smart Jew. So he may appear to worship Einstein likeyou do, but he asks all the right questions. So he praises Einstein for"revolutionizing" all physics, which is clearly NOT true since thetheory of relativity came from Galileo not Einstein as journo-sciencepreaches. Einstein merely advanced the mathematics from mechanics toelectromagnetics.

General relativity on the other hand is merely a mathematical theory ofgravity. And what this theory did was (as Eric notes) ruin physics bydivesting it of the reality it possessed in the 19th century. It spawnedthe erroneous idea that math fantasy is somehow more real than reality.Naturally, as science slipped into fantasy, science turned into sciencefiction to be made into TV programs on PBS. In other words Einstein thegreat cosmic genius gets to take some credit for foisting journo-sciencenonsense on the world.

The problem as Eric quickly homes in on is that unlike in the liberalworld of journo-science where facts do not matter, in real science,facts are the ONLY thing that matters! And the lasting problem of thequantum effects is that the obvious link between these effects and acontinuum universe lives in the heat theory of Phlogiston! Once that isperceived, a fundamental fact of the nature of the foundations of allreality becomes obvious and the long sought after TOE falls out almostlike magic as phenomenon after phenomenon falls into place!

Yes Eric almost gets it and you Sammy deserve credit for posting hisposing of these real and fundamental questions of science rather thanyour usual parroting of nonsense journo-lies about climate. So, Sammy,this time you did good!

Why Can't We Find the Theory of Everything? Einstein, Rogue Genius,String Theory | Eric Weinstein http://youtu.be/Yw88utUCx9M"Einstein's theory of relativity revolutionized our view of theuniverse, positing a space-time continuum undergirding all reality.Equally impactful has been quantum mechanics, which describe thebehavior of subatomic particles in ways that differ from observablematter. But both theories have been verified by empirical observationand scientific experiments. String theory, and a select number ofother theories that purport to explain the universe in one,all-encompassing equation, remain completely divorced from thephysical world. Surely theories about the universe must relatedirectly to the matter in it?! Did Einstein get it wrong, or hasgroupthink led us down the wrong path for the last 40 years?""So you’d be hard-pressed to say that nothing is happening. Theproblem is that we really wanted to quantize the geometry of generalrelativity but, in fact, what we ended up doing was geometrizing thequantum."

Well, seems to be a good idea!

Quantum mechanics is based on a certain assumption:

flat (uncurved) spacetime.

IOW: QM works with one dimensions of time in 3d space without gravity,(what is not the assumption of GR).

So: QM should describe entities, which are a subset of something morecomplex, that emerge, if such conditions are given.

My personal idea to solve this problem is to take spacetime of GR as'real thing' and make particles out of it.

I call this concept 'structured spacetime' where particles are suchstructures:

"It is a question as to whether this is more of a physics-inspiredtheory or whether it’s really an economic and sociological phenomenon,which is that you have a generation that physicists in the baby boomwho seem to be absolutely astounding geometers but appear to bewanting in terms of their ability to make contact with the naturalworld by the standards of previous generations.""And naturally that’s going to elicit some very strong feelings,because the idea that we would have had perhaps two generations let’ssay in 40 years of physicists who can’t make contact with experimentalreality with their theories is completely unprecedented in the modernera."

Excellent choice, Wormley! I rag on you a lot for your worship of idiotjourno-science propaganda sites like Phys.org and others. But I'm nothere to just denigrate you like some insane liberal idiot, If you startto actually think, I'm going to notice and praise you for it. And Ericis of course a very smart Jew. So he may appear to worship Einstein likeyou do, but he asks all the right questions. So he praises Einstein for"revolutionizing" all physics, which is clearly NOT true since thetheory of relativity came from Galileo not Einstein as journo-sciencepreaches. Einstein merely advanced the mathematics from mechanics toelectromagnetics.

There had been several 'flavors' of relativity, created by differentauthors.

My favorite is the version of Hermann Minkowski.

Post by benjGeneral relativity on the other hand is merely a mathematical theory ofgravity. And what this theory did was (as Eric notes) ruin physics bydivesting it of the reality it possessed in the 19th century. It spawnedthe erroneous idea that math fantasy is somehow more real than reality.Naturally, as science slipped into fantasy, science turned into sciencefiction to be made into TV programs on PBS. In other words Einstein thegreat cosmic genius gets to take some credit for foisting journo-sciencenonsense on the world.

Well, possibly the universe operates on principles, which are somehowmathematical.

In this case we would only need to identify the appropriate type of math.

My opinion is: the mathematical principles used by the universe must besomething like that of complex numbers, but not flat like a sheet ofpaper, since nature has volume.

I think, that bi-quaternions (also known as: complex four vectors) seemto be the most useful construct, if we try to mimic the behavior of nature.

(This is at least the assumption of my 'book' - the google doc quotedabove).

Post by Thomas HegerMy personal idea to solve this problem is to take spacetime of GR as'real thing' and make particles out of it.I call this concept 'structured spacetime' where particles are suchhttps://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

A great deal of work in that, so thank you for that Thomas.

Unfortunately your efforts are largely wasted, since youfail to recognize that the speed of light is no more constantthan is the speed of sound, and Einstein totally misled 20thcentury physics with his constant speed of light nonsense.

However you do make some useful points, including the factit is sometimes better to consider the medium as a continuum.and i agree that this can be helpful in understanding bothsound waves and light waves,

"The speed of sound is higher than the speed of the atoms"

Depends what you mean,Thomas,for sure there will always besome atoms with a velocity greater than the speed of sound.but you are correct in thinking that if we treat the mediumas a continuum then the velocity of that continuous medium,as a sound wave passes through that continuous medium,thoughfinite, will be [well] less than c.

Post by Thomas HegerMy personal idea to solve this problem is to take spacetime of GR as'real thing' and make particles out of it.I call this concept 'structured spacetime' where particles are suchhttps://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

A great deal of work in that, so thank you for that Thomas.Unfortunately your efforts are largely wasted, since youfail to recognize that the speed of light is no more constantthan is the speed of sound, and Einstein totally misled 20thcentury physics with his constant speed of light nonsense.

In the used 'spacetime-view' velocity is an angle.

So I define light with the angle of 45° degree. Hence the speed of lightis always the same (c=45°) and always constant.

Since I try to use complex numbers and treat the spacetime diagram askind of Argand-diagram, this angle is between the imaginary axis(->timelike) and the real axis (->spacelike). Light is than doing this:'one step up and one step right/left'.

But constant speed of light does not say, that other velocities areimpossible. You could easily imagine other curves. Steeper anglesrepresent slower velocities and flat curves are faster than light. Onlythat is not light.

Since 'light in vacuum' is actually what we see in the night sky andthat light moves to the observer along the past light cone, we couldassume, that the vision we have from the night sky ('universe') isactually our own past light cone.

The picture is observer dependent, since all observers are at differentlocations. Therefore every observer sees a different 'universe', filledwith different objects and equipped with a different axis of time.

Post by Keith SteinHowever you do make some useful points, including the factit is sometimes better to consider the medium as a continuum.and i agree that this can be helpful in understanding bothsound waves and light waves,"The speed of sound is higher than the speed of the atoms"Depends what you mean,Thomas,for sure there will always besome atoms with a velocity greater than the speed of sound.but you are correct in thinking that if we treat the mediumas a continuum then the velocity of that continuous medium,as a sound wave passes through that continuous medium,thoughfinite, will be [well] less than c.

Sound waves moving through material objects are usually faster than theatoms of the lattice, the matter is composed of.

Post by Thomas HegerMy personal idea to solve this problem is to take spacetime of GR as'real thing' and make particles out of it.I call this concept 'structured spacetime' where particles are suchhttps://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

A great deal of work in that, so thank you for that Thomas.Unfortunately your efforts are largely wasted, since youfail to recognize that the speed of light is no more constantthan is the speed of sound, and Einstein totally misled 20thcentury physics with his constant speed of light nonsense.

In the used 'spacetime-view' velocity is an angle.So I define light with the angle of 45° degree. Hence the speed of lightis always the same (c=45°) and always constant.

Where the VERTICAL axis is TIME in seconds,and the HORIZONTAL axis is DISTANCE in light-seconds.

and OF COURSE in those damn fool units you will get astraight line at an angle of 45 degrees, because ofcourse light travels 1 light second in 1 second eh!,and that is what Einstein did Michael, he DEFINES thespeed of light as CONSTANT IN ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE!

simply AN IMPOSSIBILITY,to an old Classical Physicist, like me. For consider, Thomas:Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.

A Blight-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/stA tB

Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s

Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/sNote that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B

Exactly Michael, you will get 'c' whatever the instruments show, andif you can't correctly measure the velocity of light relative to anobserver walking through a laboratory, then you certainly got no chanceof correctly measuring the velocity of light relative to a moving spacecraft eh!

keith stein

Post by Thomas HegerSince I try to use complex numbers and treat the spacetime diagram askind of Argand-diagram, this angle is between the imaginary axis'one step up and one step right/left'.But constant speed of light does not say, that other velocities areimpossible. You could easily imagine other curves. Steeper anglesrepresent slower velocities and flat curves are faster than light. Onlythat is not light.Since 'light in vacuum' is actually what we see in the night sky andthat light moves to the observer along the past light cone, we couldassume, that the vision we have from the night sky ('universe') isactually our own past light cone.The picture is observer dependent, since all observers are at differentlocations. Therefore every observer sees a different 'universe', filledwith different objects and equipped with a different axis of time.

Post by Keith SteinHowever you do make some useful points, including the factit is sometimes better to consider the medium as a continuum.and i agree that this can be helpful in understanding bothsound waves and light waves,"The speed of sound is higher than the speed of the atoms"Depends what you mean,Thomas,for sure there will always besome atoms with a velocity greater than the speed of sound.but you are correct in thinking that if we treat the mediumas a continuum then the velocity of that continuous medium,as a sound wave passes through that continuous medium,thoughfinite, will be [well] less than c.

Sound waves moving through material objects are usually faster thanthe atoms of the lattice, the matter is composed of.

Well my own expertise in the transmission of acousticpressure waves in gases, and, probably for that reason,i had (incorrectly i now see) assumed that is it wasthe atoms of a gas, rather than a solid, which we weretalking about, so ignore what i wrote previously eh! :)

Post by Thomas HegerMy personal idea to solve this problem is to take spacetime of GR as'real thing' and make particles out of it.I call this concept 'structured spacetime' where particles are suchhttps://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

A great deal of work in that, so thank you for that Thomas.Unfortunately your efforts are largely wasted, since youfail to recognize that the speed of light is no more constantthan is the speed of sound, and Einstein totally misled 20thcentury physics with his constant speed of light nonsense.

In the used 'spacetime-view' velocity is an angle.So I define light with the angle of 45° degree. Hence the speed oflight is always the same (c=45°) and always constant.

Where the VERTICAL axis is TIME in seconds,and the HORIZONTAL axis is DISTANCE in light-seconds.and OF COURSE in those damn fool units you will get astraight line at an angle of 45 degrees, because ofcourse light travels 1 light second in 1 second eh!,and that is what Einstein did Michael, he DEFINES thespeed of light as CONSTANT IN ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE!

a straight line is actually a part of the light cone. That cone has acertain meaning, which is commonly forgotten:

A circle in a 3d spacetime diagram means in fact a sphere.

A sphere is meant to belong to a certain time and older spheres arelarger (along our past light cone).

Since that past light cone is actually what we see in the night sky, thespace we see is not real, since the pictures we see at the same timebelong to different ages in the past, hence do not build a physical system.

That alone would make one wonder, what cosmologists are actually doing.

But more interesting is this:if 'space' and 'universe' are actually a picture a certain observerreceives from his past, than are all these spaces the same?

Well, certainly not, since all observers should see a valid universe,hence cannot see the same, because their past is not the same.

From this we can draw the conclusion, that all observers have alsodifferent measures of time.

Even past and future are not the same universally, since any possibleobserver has his own past and future.

If so we could define time on the foundation of local observations andgrant similar rights to all other observers.

Those other observers would therefor define other directions of past andfuture, other spaces and other measures for space and time.

If we take any of these definitions, we always find c to be 1light-second per second (however that second might be defined).

Post by Thomas Hegera straight line is actually a part of the light cone. That cone has aA circle in a 3d spacetime diagram means in fact a sphere.A sphere is meant to belong to a certain time and older spheres arelarger (along our past light cone).Since that past light cone is actually what we see in the night sky, thespace we see is not real, since the pictures we see at the same timebelong to different ages in the past, hence do not build a physical system.That alone would make one wonder, what cosmologists are actually doing.if 'space' and 'universe' are actually a picture a certain observerreceives from his past, than are all these spaces the same?Well, certainly not, since all observers should see a valid universe,hence cannot see the same, because their past is not the same.From this we can draw the conclusion, that all observers have alsodifferent measures of time.Even past and future are not the same universally, since any possibleobserver has his own past and future.If so we could define time on the foundation of local observations andgrant similar rights to all other observers.Those other observers would therefor define other directions of past andfuture, other spaces and other measures for space and time.If we take any of these definitions, we always find c to be 1light-second per second (however that second might be defined).

Even more interesting is this question:

if space is 'relative' than how does this affects its content (matter)???

If we could 'grab' the axis of time and turn it into another direction,then how are space, time and material objects are influenced by this?

Well, time should stay time, if we twist the axis of time of our localenvironment.

It would not be the same time, but still behaves like time and we couldnot really notice any difference.

Space would kind of shrink and would eventually vanish in a black hole.

But we wouldn't worry, since with loosing space we see another oneunfolding.

Matter of the former space, however, seems to be lost, too, while newmatter pops out of nowhere.